tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 29 23:39:54 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
- Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 13:56:30 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, January 29, 1998 2:27 AM
Subject: Re: Locatives and {-bogh} (was Re: KLBC Poetry)
>ja'pu' Qermaq:
>>Qe'Daq vIje'qangbogh qagh wISoplaH.
>>We can eat qagh in the restaurant which I am willing to buy.
>
>Umm...I don't think so at all. There's no way I can get myself to use
>{Qe'Daq} in this sentence as anything other than a locative. It's a bit
>ambiguous as to whether it's the locative of {je'} or {Sop}, but it is
>*not* the object of either verb. And with no obvious object to act as
>head noun, {vIje'qangbogh} falls flat and fails to mean much of anything
>to me.
meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoH neH.
{qach} is the head noun of the relative clause, and the entire noun phrase
is a locative.
Qe'Daq vIje'qangbogh qagh wISoplaH.
{Qe'} is the head noun of the relative clause, and the entire noun phrase is
a locative.
Whether or not {meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoH neH} is a fluke, Qermaq's
sentence DOES fit the same pattern, only with the head noun as object
instead of subject.
SuStel
Stardate 98080.2